Live the dream with Commander in Chief: The Game

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It got an M rating because of all the swearing your character does at the current economic state. Also, there is a graphic suicide scene if you decide it's too hard and feel like quitting.

Also, if you play as Clinton there's a cigar-based mini-game...

International war crimes ;)

That is the smartest thing I've heard today. +1

True, as with any democracy, but in this case it's a bit more historically significant, and should be acknowledged by all except the most bitter Republicans and racists

Except by celebrating it your also being racist.

And before this gets out of control all I'm saying is if you like him, celebrate the man, not the color.

Don't worry about it getting out of control. You haven't said anything racist, but you are simply wrong on what actually constitutes racism.

*ahem*
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There is absolutely nothing racist about celebrating the first inauguration of an African American President, not simply for his character, but for the sake of him being black.
Doing so does not involve making judgments about his character or his fitness to lead based on his ethnicity.
Doing so does not endorse any notion of the superiority or inferiority of any particular ethnicity.
Doing so is not intolerant, hateful, or disrespectful of the now-broken parade of white presidents before Obama, or towards white people in general.
Doing so does not imply that black people, or any particular ethnicity (including white people), is inherently more or less qualified to serve in public office.
Doing so simply makes no claims whatsoever as to the inherent qualities or differences of ethnicities. You are misdefining racism.

Celebrating the factor of Obama's ethnicity does not involve making claims about any inherent qualities of that ethnicity, it's celebrating his ethnicity in the context of American history, and celebrating the hard-won progress of American morality. Who is being discriminated against by doing so? Who suffers from it, or better yet, who is not welcome to celebrate? Who then, is being discriminated against? And if the answer is no one (which it is), how is it racist?

As for you DiRT, the Pew Research Center found that 67% plan to watch the Inauguration. I don't know if you dropped out or something, but 100-67 does not equal 46%. It equals 33%. A third. Oh but maybe you were referring to the division of votes on November 4th, over two and a half months ago (and it was 45.7%, to be pedantic). True enough, passions ran high at the climax of the campaign, but the data since then doesn't bode well for grumpypusses like you. Obama's favourable/unfavourable ratings, tracked by Pollster.com, have climbed steadily since November, currently (as of this posting) resting at 71.4% favourable, 16.3% unfavourable. Adding to that, an Opinion Research Poll conducted for CNN found right before Christmas that 82% of Americans approved of how Obama and his team were handling the transition.

Feeling lonely yet? Wanker.
P.S Before you call me out for not being some kind of post-partisan nice guy, I'm not American. While your new (awesome) President dives into the work ahead and tries to forge a bipartisan coalition, the rest of the world won't soon forget how badly conservatives - social and economic - have ruined things.

Maynard,
Wow, you're so cool to blame America in general and conservatives in particular for the world being screwed up. To quote Lisa Simpson, "That's so rebellious...in a conformist sort of way."
But I agree with you, America should stay the hell out of foreign affairs and the rest of the world. After all, if we weren't busy toppling fascist regimes and trying to set up democratic governments the world over then our citizens wouldn't be targets for sociopathic warmongers with dictatorial aspirations. Do we look after our own interests? Sure, what rational person wouldn't? So if the cost isn't worth the gain, don't ask for help. Why should we sacrifice men, money and food for a bunch of fair-weather friends and ungrateful assholes? How does it make any sense to meet as peers with governments that can't even take care of their own citizens?
But whatever, keep blaming everybody else for your problems. That generally works pretty well. Everyone loves a victim.

"Wow, you're so cool to blame America in general and conservatives in particular for the world being screwed up." Wait, when did I say world? Oh shit, I guess I didn't. I said "things", and also mentioned that I'm not American, and you assumed more than what I said.

Gee, I also never said that America should stay out of global affairs, so no, I guess you don't agree with me, even facetiously.

It's almost as though you think you're better at reading than you are. You're not. Sorry buddy. :)

On the other hand, American subterfuge in the 50's to the 70's led to a lot of legitimate governments being replaced with fascists who were more friendly to the US (economically speaking).

Of course, the backlash of this is that some of these regimes have grown unsatisfactory over time, e.g. Iran.

So what's the solution? Another regime change.

I'm sorry, I think I see where the confusion arose, when I said "the rest of the world won't soon forget" and then mentioned "ruined things". Let me clarify: I meant the rest of the world won't soon forget what conservatives have specifically done to America itself. For my own part, I want to see America pull itself up as a force of scientific leadership, and I won't forget what Bush's administration did to research because conservatives were too stupid to understand the potential of embryonic stem cell research, or because acknowledging climate change was inconvenient, or because space just wasn't that interesting anymore, or how idiot creationists still manage to creep onto school boards in hick states because there are no federal standards of education. I won't forget clowns like Sarah Palin mocking fruit fly research, or McCain bear research. Such people are not to be trusted with a country that powerful.
I also meant it in the sense that, for example: if Obama doesn't honour the treaties America is a part of, "the rest of the world" will see to it that Bush and his friends rot in jail cells, as they deserve, for the war crimes they authorised.

Maynard,
"the rest of the WORLD won't soon forget how badly conservatives - social and economic - have ruined things."

That's your exact quote with the word "world" embellished, just so you could see where you used it. So based on that sentence I inferred that you meant that conservatives were messing things up for the world. Yeah, that's a huge leap.

Maybe I'm not that great at reading...or maybe you're just bad at writing? It's an avenue of thought that you should explore, pal.

I believe I clarified myself above. Sorry if I was too ambiguous in my first remarks.

Maynard,
Thank you for explaining, that makes much more sense.

WRE,

"for a bunch of fair-weather friends and ungrateful assholes?"

Yeah, how dare we have allies who disagree with us on things that have ultimately proven them right (Iraq).

"How does it make any sense to meet as peers with governments that can't even take care of their own citizens?"

We are going through a financial crisis where millions are and will be effected... 47 million (and counting) uninsured... poverty growing... by your criteria, should we not meet with ourselves?

You guys had your chance and you undeniably failed so epically. I am just grateful that it wasn't so epic as to deny us the chance, or dare I say "hope", to fix it.

It's okay. You got time to regroup and come back with an ideology that doesn't inherently work to destroy our great Nation and everything it stands for.

J,

Whoa dude, you're mighty wrong if you think that I'm a Republican. On the other hand, there's no way in hell I consider myself a Democrat. I just hate when nobody considers the history that led to certain events/decisions and just regurgitates what they heard on FOX news OR CNN. You can pass off responsibility for the last 8 years and blame it on "you guys", but there's plenty of blame to go around, which you would know if you knew how our government works. Plenty of Democrats voted FOR the war in Iraq, including our brand new Secretary of State. Repeatedly. Imagine that! Quite frankly, I believe we could have learned a lesson in retaliation from Golda Meir, but that's another story.

"I am just grateful that it wasn't so epic as to deny us the chance, or dare I say "hope", to fix it."

God, what a pretentious load of shit. Yep, you and Obama are going to fix the country, J. Maybe after you do that you'll wind down on the White House lawn with burgers and beer and you and Obama will pretend to shake hands but instead he'll pull you into a nice, long, heterosexual(?) hug.

I personally believe that racial nepotism should be considered racism. I know however that it doesn't fall into the strict definition of racism.

Racial nepotism, or simply racial favouritism, would definitely be considered a form of discrimination, if not overt racism. You will have no argument from me that there were probably quite a few African Americans that voted for him for reasons of racial favouritism, and white Americans who did so out of some kind of legacy guilt, etc.
Bad reasons, given the good ones available.
However, the charge can't be made very accurately or broadly; that same legacy guilt and favouritism didn't do Alan Keyes or Al Sharpton many favours. And then of course there's the rare species of African American out there that voted for McCain. It's like they're individuals or something! :P

Speculative arguments of racial favouritism may come into play when discussing how Obama came to be elected (though its effect will depend on who you talk to, and practically no one will have any reliable evidence to back it up) - but your initial argument seemed to be that simply celebrating the historic occasion of an African American President was racist. I don't see how.

So, you're not a Republican, you just try really hard to sound like one... okay... where did they all go all of a sudden? I take it you're a "Libertarian".

It's okay either way. Labels suck. It doesn't matter what you're called if you're wrong, you're wrong, as I pointed out with the observations on your espoused beliefs above about which you didn't bother responding to.

Whatever, you're right, though. I guess all is lost and there's no sense in trying to fix anything. Thank you for showing me the light. I just wish that our elected officials could be as strong in character as you and just give up.

Care to address any of the other points I made regarding how full of crap you are, regardless of your party affiliation, or lack thereof?

Yes, that's right, question my sexuality... It's still kind of funny to see what people do on the internet that they wouldn't dare try in person. Stay classy.

btw, My contempt is not reserved for Republicans in regards to the Iraq war. It's funny how quickly you made this a partisan debate (I never once mentioned a particular party) while simutaneously attempting to take yourself out of one. Well played... (not really).

I still fail to see how celebrating someones skin color when the outcome should have nothing to do with race isn't viewed questionably.

Okay.. think of it this way - it's being celebrated because his election is explicit confirmation that the outcome of the Presidential election actually does "have nothing to do with race", specifically that being a member of a non-white ethnicity is not a barrier to holding the Presidency. Until he was sworn in, this was an idealistic assertion that many people in America, white and non-white, had cause to scoff at, given the history. This is why I've kept repeating that his race is being celebrated in its historical context.

You may shrug and say "I don't know, just seems kinda weird when we're all supposed to be equal, y'know?" but what you're doing is assuming the ideal post-racial world had already been achieved by some single act of the past, whether that be the Emancipation Proclamation, Brown v BoE, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc. Such attitudes are oblivious to the slow gradient of social progress, and they lead down the path of "Hey, why don't we have White History Month? Seems kinda weird when we have Black History Month, and we're supposed to be equal, y'know?" to "What's wrong with having White Pride? Hm?" to "God I hate them."
It's a racism of shrugs, of "I thought we were past this. Why do they keep complaining? Why aren't they as enlightened about racial equality as I am? I've gotten over their continuing social hardships, or at least stopped acknowledging they exist, so why can't they?" Tread carefully.

It doesn't take much to be a president. Just talk big, use happy words, buy off voters with freebies and you're a president. It doesn't matter what ethnicity you are, this can be done by anyone.

Also, I didn't watch the coronation (the ridiculous cost of this thing is a coronation) because I have better things to do, like work, which contributed to the economy. 67% of America just made our economy a little worse by watching what should be an irrelevant public servant, not a celebrity, get sworn in.

My parents raised me properly and to be color blind. I'm not afraid of treading here, I think we should do away with any kind of 'racial pride'. There's nothing wrong with honoring your heritage, traditions, and your unique cultural makeup, but honoring yourself simply because of your skin color, yeah that is racist and I believe that the future will ultimately agree.

"honoring yourself simply because of your skin color"
Again, I must repeat for the third time, his ethnicity is being celebrated in its historical context. I can find no example of the "black self-worship" you are implying with that quote.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that your upbringing does not correspond to the state of the world, that it only reflects how your parents feel the world should be. Ideals and principles like racial equality are not to be taken for granted, but you are actively doing so, which is perhaps why you remain weirdly unimpressed by such a milestone of social progress. Why you keep shrugging, as if to say "So what, a black man could've been President at any point in America's history, even before they could vote, get married, be educated, or own property. My parents raised me to be colourblind, so that means that African Americans have never been oppressed and this victory is meaningless."

I get and respect what you are saying. I will try to look at it from that angle.

That "Reply" button thing is tough. Don't worry, you'll get it.

Maynard,
Sorry for the jibe, that wasn't necessary.